The Comprehensive Dummies Guide to Responsibility in Writing:  A rejoinder to Samuel Onipede’s "Extremism and Irresponsibility Versus Isioma Daniel"

by

D. S. Dauda, MD

Ternopol, Ukraine

-- Goethe, German poet and scientist

The relevance of US senator Henry Clay’s statement that "the art of power and its minions is the same in all countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own abuses and encroachments" must surely be resounding to followers of events in our country. For Nigeria is one of those unfortunate countries where no one ever takes responsibility for anything. Whenever a government or any of its agencies can not deliver, it is because of saboteurs and/or political enemies. A scapegoat is always at hand – Abacha had NADECO and "phantom-coup" plotters, today it’s the nebulous "enemies of our nascent democracy". Given that it has been a long held tradition of our mass media to tendentiously blame the "North", "Northerners", "Northern Oligarchy/Hegemony", "Fulani Oligarchy", and of late "Shariah" and "Islamic Fundamentalism" for all of Nigeria’s problems, it is not surprising to find Dr. Onipede singing the same tune. What is surprising is his inability to concretise. Is it the "political desperadoes who are bent on bringing the nation to it's(sic) knee(sic)" or is it "the Islamic clerics and Ulamas(sic) who as sermon preach violence, intolerance and extremism as the only direct route to Aljannu(sic)" . While one admits the genuine existence of unscrupulous political actors who are not above the use of violence to attain their goals, it is totally irresponsible and malicious to suggest that the ulama are "are the real culprits and the roots of instability in Nigeria, they are the ones who direct their followers to go and wreck havocs (sic)". This is clearly an attempt at giving the dog a bad name in order to hang it. The writer attempts to drag Nigerian Muslims into the ranks of terrorists. This is why he goes on to add that "when the entire world is fighting to rid the globe of terrorism and religious extremism and bigotry, our own Muslims seem to be embracing the self-destructive and shameful culture". In this spirit, he thus goes on to recommend that "They(ulama) are the ones the government and its agents should have put under arrests (sic) and set up a(sic) monitoring teams in each mosque every Friday to monitor their sermons and promptly rounded-up(sic) whenever they digress in such sermons". So much for freedom of speech! It may not be out of place to point out to our learned die-hard liberal that even in Israel/Palestine, where such sermons are indeed common-place, the government is wise enough not to heed such advice. If he wants to contribute his expertise on battling terrorism or, as he would put it, "civil-unrest management ability" let him start by doing so on how to tackle the menace of his brethren in the OPC. After all the United States, who is at the helm of the anti-terrorist crusade and thus knows best who qualifies as a terrorist, has officially labeled it as such. I have not, as of yet, come across any other organization in Nigeria that has received that distinction.

Dr. Onipede’s assertion that "(Isioma Daniel’s) article to me does not constitute slander in any way" gives the reader room to arrive at any of four conclusions, viz.:

Although I very strongly suspect the latter, I shall give him the benefit of doubt and take on all four points.

1. The Microsoft Encarta Dictionary defines "slander" as:

n 1. the act of saying something false or malicious that damages somebody’s

reputation

v to make a false and malicious oral statement about somebody

2. As a Muslim, the statement made by Isioma Daniel is so reprehensible to me that I can not bear to repeat it here. However, if Dr. Onipede after full comprehension of the definition of slander given above still does not see it manifested in the said statement, then I beg your indulgence to ask him this one question: supposing we knew that the his father was an upright man who brought him up to resent stealing and corruption, and then in an attempt to defend a thief who stole from him we say "look if your father were here he would have gladly taken some of the stolen goods as a bribe and would have kept quite" would he in all honesty feel that this statement does not qualify as one that is false, malicious and damaging to his father’s reputation?

3. Nigerian Muslims, as indeed Muslims everywhere, hold the person of the Prophet in the highest esteem. Indeed objective non-Muslim scholars who have studied the man and his life over the ages have not hidden their adoration.

Dr. Gustav Weil in his ‘History of the Islamic Peoples’ writes:

W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' published by Oxford Publishers in 1953:

The TIME Magazine of July 15, 1974 had an essay by Jules Masserman titled: ‘Who Were History’s Great Leaders?' in which he concludes that "perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammad".

These were all non-Muslims who really studied the life of the man and not merely pre-programmed and prejudiced commentators like Isioma Daniel.

4. In his further quest to mitigate Daniel’s offence, he goes ahead to make this preposterous statement: "Another factor here is that Isioma Daniel is a woman and the contestants of the Miss World Beauty Pageant are all women, She (sic) could as well be a Feminist (sic) who saw the opportunity to accentuate the positive virtues of her gender" and further adds: "I like any right thinking human being am sure she did not deliberately meant (sic) to be blasphemous". I am sure one will agree with me that these statements are as warped in their logic as they are grammatically incorrect. Whoever heard of feminists supporting beauty contests and since when did the exhibition of nakedness and portrayal of women as mere objects of lust become a "positive virtue"? Well, maybe feminism with a capital letter ‘F’ is something different altogether. Maybe the management of ThisDay, the government and the C.E.O of Miss World, Julia Morley, amongst others who are all agreed that indeed Daniel is at fault are all not "right thinking human beings".

The overall impression one is left with after reading Dr. Onipede’s cant was that of a veiled attack on the religion and followers of Islam based on the usual misconceptions or outright deliberately malicious negative portrayal of the religion that seems to be in vogue. This is why on one hand he wonders: "if the holy book Al'Quran (sic) recommends that (the killing of innocent people) or if the purpose of going inside the mosque in the first place is to ask for God's blessing as they are about to go and unleash terror on his (sic) creators (sic)" and in the very next sentence provides clear non sequitur to this by stating that the Qur’an is against taking other people’s lives. If you believe the Holy Book is against violence, then why turn around and "wonder" if it recommends it? If indeed you have ever come across a copy of the book, you would at least appreciate the fact that it contains no contradictions. To further demonstrate his hatred for the religion, he goes on to ask: "If these holy prophets do not consider lives sacred and believe that decisions on individual's (sic) life is subject to God's (Allah's) wish, are they not far more capable of causing havocs(sic) that (sic) the combined world nuclear arsenals are incapable of.(sic). I believe Dr. Onipede’s scholarly colleagues who have, no doubt, dedicated as much time to the study of the Prophet’s life and mission as we assume he has spent in pursuit of his qualifications adequately answer him.

Thomas Carlyle in his famous lecture 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History' way back in 1840 said "The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only", adding: "A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so".

M. Marmaduke Pickthall, in his 1927 Lecture on 'Tolerance in Islam' added that: ‘"in the eyes of history, religious toleration is the highest evidence of culture in a people....It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance and other evidences of the highest culture. Before the coming of Islam it (tolerance) had never been preached as an essential part of religion".

Finally, English author and political philosopher H.G. Wells: "The Islamic teachings have left great traditions for equitable and gentle dealings and behavior, and inspire people with nobility and tolerance. These are human teachings of the highest order and at the same time practicable. These teachings brought into existence a society in which hard-heartedness and collective oppression and injustice were the least as compared with all other societies preceding it....Islam is replete with gentleness, courtesy, and fraternity".

Any "right thinking" person will agree that these globally acclaimed scholars hardly paint the picture the Onipedes of this world have in their heads.

As to the inanity that "some people want to impose their wills(sic) and religious faiths on the others without their wills(sic)" and his regretting "coming from the same country as these primitive and crude Muhajideens(sic)", I find no better reply than to refer him to De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' (London, 1923): "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated".

It bears repeating that the religion of Islam has never advocated violence as a tool. All Muslims with basic knowledge of the religion and its tenets know this. It is quite unfortunate that there are people the world over who, in ignorance or for selfish reasons, perpetrate all sorts of atrocities in the name of Islam. This, however, does not give one the right to unjustly attack the religion itself. If Dr. Onipede’s article had been one of condemnation of the use of violence by the people who chose to do so in Kaduna, Abuja and other places, I would have been in total agreement with him. Rather, he chose to point fingers in the wrong direction and in the process revealed his mischievous intentions. Indeed the ulama Onipede wants us to believe are the real culprits are the ones the government runs to whenever there is a need to calm frayed nerves. It is instructive to note the refusal by imams in Kaduna to pray for dead victims in protest against their participation in the riots. These same religious and opinion leaders in the area had earlier attempted to prevail on the youths not to carry out the planned attack on their Christian neighbours. If Onipede had written to condemn the Zamfara state government’s so-called "fatwa" on the life of Isioma Daniel, I would have joined in agreement as did the Federal Government, respected ulama the rest of the Islamic world. Alas, he chooses to insult our intelligence by insinuating that we can not recognize an insult when we come across one, that we are only interested in rubbishing the achievements of Obasanjo’s administration. It may not be out of place to add that it is only in a country like Nigeria where 80% of the resources are spent in running the government, to the detriment of all other sectors, that the hosting of a beauty contest is counted as an achievement. All the more depressing is the fact that supposedly enlightened individuals lament not this fact, but that the country has been denied "the chance of inclusion in the prestigious membership of the (sic) Beauty (sic) contest hosts". When Charles De Gaulle made the remark that "politics is too serious a business to be left to politicians alone", he probably had in mind the role intellectuals and other elders had to play in the running of a country. With the type of politicians and "intellectuals" we have it is not surprising we find ourselves in this perpetual quagmire.

It has been said that the only real mistake is one from which we learn nothing. Isioma Daniel and ThisDay are human and have made one. The subsequent bloodshed and "fatwa" given out by people pretending to be protecting the interests of Islam and Nigerian Muslims are abominable and stand to be condemned. We can only hope and pray that these events serve as a lesson and do not join the legion of mistakes we have made in the course of our collective existence. I find no better way to end this contribution than the words of British mathematician and philosopher Bertrand Russell: "Hatred of enemies is easier and more intense than love of friends. But from men who are more anxious to injure opponents than to benefit the world at large no great good is to be expected."

Dec 2002